Thank you guys. The reason I brought this up in the first place is because there is an american group that has a zero-tolerance position on abortion, which is fine. but they went so far as to say people who supported the passing the partial birth abortion legislation were NOT pro-life because there are other ways to kill a child without partial birth abortion. Anyway, a discussion of this group came up and I said that people like fr. frank pavone who supported this are definitely pro-life. After I said this, a lady who is very active and involved in the pro-life movement lambasted me and sarcastically said I’m ok with babies being slaughtered one way but not another. Then she accused me of not having common sense. Later, I asked the same question as I asked you above. She said we should vote no on that legislation because we are then consenting to the killing of babies in certain cases. She actually even quoted Evangelium Vitae. And then she said we can’t do evil so good can come of it. But this is a very different case.
I was very put off by her attack on me, and I wanted to see what other pro-life people thought. Obviously it seems most people here would support incremental improvement rather than an all or nothing proposition. To me, when you go for all or nothing, you are making this some sort of negotiation, like a car sale. It then becomes a sort of ideological arm wrestle rather than seeking to improve the law one step at a time. Anyway, just to respond to the assertion that this is doing evil so that good may come of it, I would say that’s false. Here we are asked to choose. Either unlimited abortion, or restricted abortion. There is no option here for no abortion. In moral theology, if you are given ONLY 2 options, one being a lesser evil and one being a greater evil, we must pick the lesser evil.